Smith ad J. ex dem Allyn Application for a mandamus, directed to the district Court of the northern district of this State, requiring that Court to vacate certain rules, which had been entered, amending a Judgt which had been entered, some terms past, and on which a writ of error had been brought—This application denied—On the ground that the Circuit Court had no authority to issue the mandamus except to compel the Court to render Judgt, so that it may be reviewed by writ of error or appeal, but has no control over proceedings in the progress of this cause.

J. ex dem Allyn ad Smith motion to set aside a judgt of reversal, Taken ex parte—on the groun<ds> <mutilated> of irregularity in serving an order to stay proceedings according to the practice of the Sup. Court of this State—Decided—That the State practice did not control that practice of this court—but as there had been a misapprehension as to the practice, the judgt would be set aside on terms, if any merits were shown—which lead to an inquiry into the merits—which led to an examination of the powers of the court over amendments, at common law & under the act of Congress, And decided 1st That at common law the power to amend ended with the term when final Judgt is entered, The proceedings being no longer in fieri—2. That all the 32 sections of judiciary act except last clause, relate to amendments in matters of form, and may be made in the appellate court as well as in court below—That last clause may reach amendments in substance, and relate to the process & proceedings—and are made on such terms as court may direct—but such application to amend must be before final Judgt—and the amendments in this case—having been made several terms after final Judgt and in matters of substance—motion denied.

J. ex dem Haven vs. Sprague Ejectment—question as to location of a deed— The only question of law decided was that on a deficiency of land, altho the grantor might own the adjoining land a Court of law had no authority to extend the deed, when the boundaries, were certain & unambiguous—and doubted as to power of a court of Chancery to give relief in that way— The remedy must be as the covenants in the deed.

Case of Delongueman—Motion for attachment—  D. had become security in a bond for the appraised value of goods seized on land in 1813[.] The goods had been libelled in District court of northern district of this State and proceedings carried on according to the coarse of the Admiralty— The cause was removed into this court under certain laws of Congress the judge having been counsel in cause— An Amendment had been allowed turning the libel into an information in rem according to this coarse of the exchequer. And condemnation for want of a claim—Decided—That the security was not discharged by lapse of time or any proceedings that had taken place—And that he might be proceeded against in a summary way as well when the proceedings were by information in rem, as if they had been on the admiralty side of the court. And that altho the bond could not be considered as taken under the 89th SS of the duty act yet it was a stipulation that might be enforced in this court in a summary way.

The United States vs. Pearson & others Indictment for endeavoring to make a revolt—The offence defined to consist in endeavoring to excite others to, resist, and throw off the lawful commands of the officers of the vessel— And that a combination to refuse to do duty—and thereby putting it out of the power of the officers to navigate the vessel was an offence under the act—and prisoners convicted, and moderate fine imposed.

Griswold vs. Hill The Deft, died during the term—and at a subsequent day, an order was entered dismissing the Complainants bill—and the motion was to set aside this order as irregular, having been entered after the death of the party.

decided—That order was irregularly entered as at common law the suit abated by the death of a party—but was inclined to the opinions that the court could direct the order to be entered as of a day in term prior to the death of the party—The complainant having avowed his intention to abandon the cause—That according to the practice of the English Chancery, where a party dies after the hearing of a cause and whilst it stands over for Judgt—The decree will be entered as of a day prior to the death¹ and as the complainant had abandoned his cause the reason of that rule applied here, altho the order was taken ex parte— But the Defts counsel having the letters of administrations in Court, it was deemed most advisable to admit the Admrs. to become parties under the act of Congress, and proceed immediately to a hearing he being ready and wanting no continuance— And a continuance was denied to opposite party, decree entered ex parte again.

Hull vs. Lee & Hopkins This was a case (in the Connecticut Circuit) for violation of a patent— The only question of law decided was—That where there is a defective specification, which was made by mistake, and without any suspicion of fraud— The patent may be surrendered to the Secretary of State. And a new patent issued for the residue of the term of 14 years, unexpired— This had been done in this case— I had decided this question in the same way two years ago in the New York Circuit— It is I believe a new question, am not aware of its having arisen in any other of the Circuits— The recovery was under $500, and there is a question yet undecided whether C[hance]ry can recover costs.